People can reasonably believe Christianity is true. People can reasonably believe Christianity is false. If that doesn't seem reasonable to you, it may be because you have an unreasonable view of reason.— Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) October 14, 2019
At the risk of triggering Rauser's fragile persecution complex:
1. If Christianity is true, why is it the case that people can reasonably believe it's false?
In general, it's possible to believe something is false even if it's actually true. We might believe something is false when it's actually true in case we lack access to the relevant evidence for its veracity.
2. However, Christianity, if true, isn't like just any truth. If Christianity is true, then God wants some or all people to know it's true. Now in Calvinism, God doesn't intend that everyone become a Christian. Indeed, in Calvinism, God intends that everyone not become a Christian. In that sense it would be consistent with Reformed exclusivism that some people reasonably believe Christianity is false because God hasn't put them in contact with the relevant evidence.
But I presume that Rauser is an inclusivist. If so, why would God leave them in an impoverished epistemic condition where it's reasonable believe Christianity is false even though Christianity is true, and he wants everyone to know it's true? If, despite that, people can reasonably believe that Christianity is false, is that because God failed to provide them with compelling evidence for the veracity of the Christian faith? But what hinders God from doing that?
Perhaps Rauser will fall back on postmortem salvation. But if God can and does provide compelling evidence in the afterlife, what prevents him from presenting compelling evidence in this life?
3. Moreover, I assume Rauser's position is not that it's reasonable for people to believe Christianity is false because they don't have the same evidence Christians have. Isn't Rauser's position that reasonable people can look at the same evidence but draw opposing conclusions? Atheists like Lowder, McTaggart, Oppy, Quine, Rowe, Sobel, Schellenberg, Tooley, and Wielenberg.
4. So doesn't his position imply that Christianity is probably false? If Christianity is true, and inclusivism is true, we wouldn't expect the evidence to be so ambivalent that people can reasonably believe Christianity is false.
What does Rauser mean by "reasonably?" If he means objectively, based on all available evidence that is rightly assessed and from which correct conclusions may be drawn, Scripture contradicts him (Romans 1:18-20 as the locus classicus for this). If he means by the "lights" of the natural, reprobate, unregenerate mind that such minds come to "reasonable" conclusions within their own capabilities, then he is correct. What Scripture declares to be the wisdom of God is foolishness to the natural man who is blinded by the god of this world. Using his natural reason he will come to wrong conclusions about spiritual things, including the truth of Christianity.
ReplyDeleteWell stated.
ReplyDeleteRe Ken, yes, it would seem that Rauser does not account for the noetic effects of sin, and the suppression of truth. Absent these Biblical concepts, then it think there could be a problem with the justice of God, and preserving that might require postulating postmortem salvation or universalism.
ReplyDeleteSteve says: "Indeed, in Calvinism, God intends that everyone not become a Christian. In that sense it would be consistent with Reformed exclusivism that some people reasonably believe Christianity is false because God hasn't put them in contact with the relevant evidence." My thought is that it is not simply that, for the reprobate, God hasn't put them in contact with the relevant evidence. That could be a part of the scenario. But my thought is that there must be a stubborn resistance to evidence that *is* provided.
Yes, that, too, is also the case.
Delete